his heart of heart believes he always wins. here is a guy who is been in new york real estate gambling rustling beauty contest, televisio contest, television, constructin , never been the target of a criminal investigation. that is astonishing in new york state. . >>

[inaudible conversations] good afternoon everyone and welcome to "the washington post" today we are fortunate to be with the two senior leaders from the department of defense to discuss security challenges america faces as one of the speakers from earlier this year the fundamental nature of war remains unchanged but what is new are the evolving technologies and battlefields like cyberspace that have dramatically increase the speed and complexity of modern warfare. as a result the united states faces unprecedented threats from many nations and those who follow the flag of no

nation. we will learn about the new dangers and the technologies and strategies united states can employ to defeat them. like to thank today's presenting sponsor with the school of engineering at george mason university now to introduce the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dunford and "washington post" david ignatius. [applause] . >> it is a great pleasure at "the washington post" to have general dunford with us today for this conversation as all conversations hear we invite the audience in the room and streaming to send us any questions so just to say a word about general dunford.

he has been a symbol of continuity in our country in two ways that i want to mention. first appointed as chairman in 2015 from president obama and then reenlisted in may by president trump with the second two-year term so with that continuity that is a symbol of what is enduring in our country. so every few days were general dunford is talking with his counterparts around the world from allied countries and the continuity that reminds me of what is continuous with the daily ups and downs with newspapers so thank you for coming.

we began with an area you are focused on with the chiefs and the administration. and that is looking new ad our competitors from the countries that challenge us and renew great power like russia and china but i want to take each of those in turn to start with russia in advance of several weeks ago that got all of our attention that they intercepted and captured three ukrainian vessels in the area off of the ukraine coast of crimea. if you watch the tapes of that you heard the russian captain screaming and cursing as he drove his vessel right into the ukrainian tug they crash

about their willingness to take risk so from that military standpoint what did that tell you about president putin and his power and what we should do. >> and it says a lot about brushes standards of what took place and that is consistent going back to georgia or crimea and ukraine. what we refer to as the competition the fall short of conflict what they are really doing is testing the international communities resolve to enforce the rules that exist with clear violations of sovereignty of taken place and to indicate it

should be a military response that they have to respond in that security space where russia will continue keep doing what they have been the last couple of years. >> so providing naval weaponry obviously in this instant - - incident the administration decided to use weapons but what do you think from a military standpoint about the extent. >> that relationship is that we reform and now just speaking to the military and those capabilities to defend themselves but there is not a discussion ongoing in response.

obviously my job is to make sure the president has options available should he decide to respond with military force but there has been no military response or a discussion in public. again the focus we believe the ukraine sovereignty is sink - - sacrosanct we assist them to defend there sovereignty. >> you talk often as indicated earlier with your russian counterpart. i am curious if you have had a conversation since this incident to establish some understanding or rules of the road quick. >> i do speak fairly regularly and we have communicated many, many times so i would say to

mitigate the risk of calculation and in a crisis then you refer in the opening comments like syria about the conflicts want us conflicts they are but also that those incidents at sea or in the air don't precipitate so it is the rules of the road that pertain to our forces. i haven't spoken specifically about this incident but the more i can communicate it would be for us policy and whatever messages are delivered by a political leader. >> if this audience can listen on conversations word we be reassured that there is continuity in this relationship than it sometimes seems quick. >> sure.

we work very hard to ensure our relationship doesn't become politicized. we are both very aware of the nature of our political relationship between the two countries and we are both committed to maintain open lines of communication in terms of miscalculation to make sure that it to the extent to have transparency and avoid miscalculation while i have never spoken publicly but one thing you should be comforted by is we conclude each phone call with a commitment to each other or not to publicly discuss the nature of our phone calls now three years plus never once has that been violated. once i inadvertently violated it once i shared it with someone who shared it but i

will say about the general he is military professional. we have challenges reconciling the political differences between the two countries with those military commitments or discussions and given that space to work through tough issues. we contributed to stability. and certainly the communications have been very important that has allowed us in a very complicated space while isys to d conflict with a large presence of russian forces on the ground.

. >> i should take this moment to ask you about syria. now finally headed toward the stabilization, do you see that quick. >> going back to the beginning fall of 2015 you paid very close attention in a particular time. we would be having a very different conversation about isys and the ground that they held in iraq and syria to reduce foreign fighters in and out of syria and iraq they have access to far less resources. so the narrative has much credibility as it does in 2015. so the narrative is resonating a bit less. in with those last vestiges

without physical manifestation. it with at work with that stabilization and with the state department and then those services provided without reconstruction and with those jobs and those types of things to say that the area has stabilized. and then we still have a lot of work to do. especially with the stabilization phase. >> so then a number of times how much longer with that

sense that those forces that is that indeterminate timeline. . >> and with that order of magnitude. and with 35 or 40000 to be trained and equipped with stability. that is so long 20 percent of those forces. and those are combat forces of arab and kurdish forces and there is the start still a long way to go so the military

campaign and that is the stabilization and make secretary pompeo through the civil war through the geneva process and united nations. so syria is associated not only with that fight but also with the diplomatic efforts through secretary pompeo so is difficult for me to speculate. it has definitely changed a great deal of years and that is sustainable and that can be adjusted based on conditions. . >> see you don't have a prospect and to announce that

intention of that inf treaty that we may be headed into a new arms race as the chief military advisor it would be useful to have some discussion and to fill in the gaps. and with those arms control quick. >> that's a great question. and conceptually i believe it had contributed to strategic stability. those that began in earnest with that stability.

and so now for three or four years to highlight russia's noncompliance and then to indicate within 60 days and then to come into compliance? but this is the message that has been delivered fairly consistently. we have been public about it but in the perfect world to come fire one - - comply with the inf and then to include that expansion. obviously i make this decision.

and as an example and with the inf treaty to bring russia back into compliance and for that to be the case to have a conversation about the mechanisms without strategic stability in the 21st century. conditions have changed and weapons have changed with some capabilities. and in and of themselves. it is very difficult to talk about tomorrow. >> is there still time for that discussion and could meet the compliance concerns? the clock is ticking. what do you think quick.

>> secretary pompeo presentation in brussels which was very consistent in the g 20 was designed as one last effort to afford the russians to become compliant. he didn't say we were suspending our compliance but in 60 days if russia doesn't come into compliance and also it looks like there were voices with 29 nations of nato all about noncompliance for the european security. >> turning to china, the other competitor that when i think about china for the first time in our modern history. as rich as we are and technologically sophisticated as we are, that frankly and

for that reference and with that what kind of military capability they are trying to build? do they want to challenge us regionally? so when we look at ourselves at the us military the two main areas that give us the competitive edge. the other is the historical ability to advance interest. and specifically that military division - - dimension and that changed over the past decade and we spoke and what

we did in desert shield and desert storm looking out we did with the campaigns through the late 19 nineties in 2003 with the ability to project vast amounts of equipment and material and people. so they have focused on denying the capability to project into the pacific and operate freely for sea air land space and cyberspace. what is fair is that china has developed capabilities and all of those domains. and the outcome to challenge us with that ability to project power what we have to do on the military side is to rest on that ability to

achieve our interest and that has depended on that that we can respond because of our ability to project power so from a military perspective to frame that problem it is our responsibility to project power and operate freely across those demesnes how much china is spending one - - spending with their capability with the recognition with china's fiscal investments with those capabilities but what is not in dispute over the last ten years they have significantly advance what the pentagon has described as the anti- access capabilities so

that is the ability of the united states to move into an area to freely once we get there. that is the critical element to eat on - - to respond in the event they would fail. so have five treaty allies in the pacific to have a commitment to their security. and to be freely is the ability to meet the requirements of those five treaties. >> when you think about the future of those chinese efforts and pakistan or this place or that do you envision a chinese navy to be a global blue water navy? or are there ambitions different and we should not see them? . >> i would lean toward the

former and not the latter despite the fact china is opaque what they are spending on defense and their capabilities at any given time but to be very transparent about their aspirations. so last year the communist party committee was pretty clear about wanting to be a global power and among those capabilities to certainly indicate to project power. >> of those chinese power what in particular of technology of artificial intelligence the algorithms that the chinese seem particularly eager to dominate.

you mentioned the chinese president's speech last fall with that technological height in the future. talk how you cai transforming your business. if you are worried we are not doing enough to get our focus set quick. >> first of all, in our profession it is that speed decision making if you think of cyberspace, ai is critical to implement effective ways in cyberspace. if you think of that area of denial or capacity in a very complex operating environment

that is obviously a critical element i don't think that is an overstatement with artificial intelligence and with artificial intelligence and with competitive advantage. something we can say definitively but it would inform of the variables of who has that competitive advantage. with one - - with regard of so many areas i would never be complacent to say we are doing enough. we are clearly in competition with competitive advantage so overall that has reduced over the ten or 12 years where we were sitting in my seat to say

we are uncontested in our ability to project power when necessary. i cannot say that today but we can meet our alliance and have a competitive advantage over any adversary. if we don't change that project one - - trajectory 2002 through may be 2016 and not to be as confident as i am. like artificial intelligence is a critical element and when we benchmark like deterrence and if that deterrence fails. >> so parts of this

competitive problem going forward one thing the chinese can command but in ways that serve the government quick. >> the best ai company, google was asked as part of that pentagon program to write out those rhythms that would be useful for the pentagon war fighters. and they learned of this and there was a petition made and all of a sudden google decided because of the employees unhappiness they would have to back up. so what about those google

employees? or amazon for that matter? what about the chairman or joint chief of staff say about the need for this brainpower quick. >> first, very simply we are the good guys. it is inexplicable to me that we would make compromises to advance business interest in china where we know that freedom is restrained and china will take intellectual property from companies and strip it away and then use that intellectual property to their own advantage we know those are taking place. it is inexplicable to me we would not have a cooperative relationship with the private sector. but what we have enjoyed since

world war ii those values that have been represented, we have arguably been the leader of the free world since world war ii. to have that capability to lead the free world and fight one - - advancing those interest and there will be alternatives of that alternative order. and then to enjoy a world order by those norms and standards these are the examples we discussed earlier. we are the good guys in the sense we do stand for what is right. we may make mistakes but the record of standing up for principles of sovereignty and for freedom of navigation and access is uncontested.

if you highlight a single and - - incident to make mistakes but over the course of 70 years it is indisputable what we stood for. if you believe that we have stood for then you need to understand that is only possible because of the relationship the us military has enjoyed and to talk about competitive advantages the us military has enjoyed for decades and with that private partnership and the ideas of the american people they don't have access to that then we are not competitive. >> so you are basically saying of that connection is broken that isn't the level traditionally quick. >> so looking back at our experience that relationship

with industry that they can rise to the top that academically and intellectually we have led the world because of our government. and to tap into silicon valley. we will not have that advantage of relationships we have traditionally enjoyed. . >> and then to look at the deployment of military troops on the border in november. so those are the what those troops have been doing looks like a paramilitary set of

tasks. but to ask them to do? so why do you as chairman think it's appropriate to go along? how much longer will that last quick. >> so looking back to what problem we can solve with the primary responsibility for enforcing the border. to indicate they had gaps in the capability they including engineering capability and ports of entry helicopter support and in some cases fixed-wing aircraft. they had's medical shortfalls imagistic shortfalls that all resonates in the department of defense. we look one - - work very closely with secretary nielsen to see what she needs us to provide and then to support

the department of homeland security. if there were a hurricane or fire with the active duty forces to support the department of all homeland security . . . .

training and equipment. the conditions under which they are operating for me to provide guidance met all of these criteria. >> you do not have authority as chairman to refuse a lawful order whatever you may think about the order. >> the american people wouldn't want generals to be making policy decisions or decide when we need force you would expect them to provide advice about the appropriateness under certain conditions but if i receive an order i think they would expect me to execute that and it would be problematic to start to make

decisions based on one political party or another and say i don't like that so i'm not going to do that. it comes down to the legal ord order. if i had a concern based on principle i can't imagine too many conditions i would resign since my code tells me that the corporal's can't re-sign when they are told what to do and my own code informed by general marshall when we all point to him as one of the north stars of civil military relations when i look in the democracy that is where i kind of land.

i have some sympathies with th this. for the challenges in space he said i want to create a new branch of the military and you were in the room when he made this announcement. the question we have is where is this now heading we are puzzled by that you think and the joint staff thinks you ought to be heading towards a marine corps

commandant. if we talk military operations base is important and there's no question about that so we have the construct to deal with space and there's three main areas in that regard making sure that we use the capabilities we have currently. for retaining people and all the things you might associate so

those are the three main elements. with regards to the first problem we've already moved out and we will establish a unified command. today we have the functional command in the united states strategic command is one example with special operations. each has a four star that works from the fifth for the secretary of defense and we do that to elevate those particular functions to the right level so the right place is there to provide advice to the secretary so we will elevate to the unified command the

responsibility will take all of the resident capability that we have in the department of defense today, put it under one single commander said that we noticed effectively employ that. the second problems to come up with the right organizational construct will result from the proposal that will come from the president to the congress and the outcome will result from the dialogue between the president and the congress on the right organizational construct. the first issue is the responsibility i was given we are moving out. we have already kind of moved behind the scenes to develop that organization. we've conducted to tabletop exercises to inform and we will havhave an exercise in februaryd march to refine the understanding of which space command will look like and what the relationships will be and

then that proposal will come out sometime in 2019 there will be a legislative proposal in subsequent budget years is one that will be addressed. >> if will be announced subject to the president and congress making the joint session. >> that's responsible for the capability and they all have components. would we change that to develop the capabilities and everybody

can make some changes to be better and take sure we are out in front of space as an emerging separate domain and you've seen so many actions you can establish a separate department of space with a separate service so it completely is a separate organization. >> you can create a separate service in that department as a second approach to that so there's many ways to do that. i wouldn't want to leave you

with nothing has happened since the president's speech quite a bit has happened to include our progress in standing up in a second command so we are most at the plea in playing the capability we have today. >> we have a couple minutes left with important things i want to get tw to and one is saudi arab. we feel deeply the loss of our colleagues and friends jamal khashoggi who was murdered. since then there has been a lot of turbulence to put it mildly and i wonder if that will affect the saudi military relationship and i want to ask about the war in yemen and what your own

military advice is for the members of the administration but that's more is a humanitarian nightmare i'm just stating what everybody knows if they get worse what kind of advice are you offering? >> saudi arabia is no different than any other. it's informed by the policies of there's been no change in the policy with regard to saudi arabia has informed our military relationship to date. i express my condolences i've seen his family many times and i've read what they've written in the post and other periodicals. we've had a strong military

relationship and it's been historically a fact that saudi arabia's contribution in the middle east is important so we have approached with that in mind. i think it's important to clarify the u.s. military operations are focused on two things, isis and al qaeda. we are not a participant in the civil war nor are we supporting one side or the other. my advice has been to continue to support martin griffis and there is an ongoing discussion this week but hopefully one of the more diplomatic developments the parties are in sweden and there's a frame work that gives a reasonable expectation that advances the situation to some degree. but again i would continue to recommend we are not a

participant and we remain an honest broker with the ability to contribute to the diplomatic situation. there's not a purely military situation just like there isn't a complex continuously so our military advice focuses and al qaeda and isis to make sure we can disrupt what has been the last few years a strain of al qaeda and we are obviously concerned about isis. >> there've been calls from congress to cut off military sales again strictly from a military standpoint. what would be the consequences of that? >> it's fair to say saudi arabia would be less capable without

access to the capabilities. i will not lean and on whether or not we ought to do that because the military dimension is one of the things to consider. there's been no change in the policies of that is what we are doing but i understand the debate taking place with regards to whether we will do that in the future. most of the considerations are important but they are not military considerations. >> i have one last question and in some ways it is probably the hardest and that is afghanistan this is a war that has been going on for 17 years. you were in afghanistan earlier this year and i think you said you thought we were making progress. we have just been through a period which the cost seemed to

spike up again to find a negotiated settlement in the conflict but at what point would you say it's time to stop putting american soldiers lives at risk and begin to draw that down. i know you don't like timetables, but i'm sure there ii am sure thereis a point at wy commander says that's it we are not going to spend another american life and a particular conflict. it isn't that we don't everyday think about that. what i would say we've got to go back on a fundamental assumpti

assumption. the capability but reconstitute and today they have the ability to do what we saw on 9/11 so it starts with that assumption and people can argue that assumption so it has less to do with security stability than it does first and foremost wary to makig recommendations to protect the american people. the presidents we've had in afghanistan has just updated the ability to reconstitute and pose a threat to us.

we assess that for those that don't pay close attention there are regional to terrorist groups operating in and around the south asia area so the question is to mean not when we should leave. i believe we have interest in south asia and we will have a diplomatic person. the debate ought to be what is the character of that presence and today my recommendation is informed by my assessment of the threat and the level of effort required to disrupt those to the homeland and worthy afghan forces capable on their own of dealing with al qaeda and were we to have a political reconciliation which is our end state i think all of us would be

happy that in my judgment today to achieve the political object is the force that's on the ground and the capabilities provided are necessary for one piece of the strategy which is military pressure. the theory of the case in afghanistan as we will put sufficient political pressure and social pressure and sufficient military pressure such that they will reconcile an afghan hound reconciliation process. when people said i said things are moving better, what was left out of the conversation was the full context of the conversati conversation. with regards to political pressure the recent elections for another element in terms of being positive and putting political pressure on the taliban. social pressure i was encouraged by the fact in pakistan and

saudi arabia the advance case of the afghan government and a third piece with the changes we made in the strategy and the conditions-based approach that nato and our partners took and the fact we were willing to provide resources to protect the security forces through 2024 which is a decision made at the meeting last summer what i said was in my judgment particularly with so many initiatives the pressure on the tablet and was moving in the right direction.

anybody that has studied the negotiations go you never really know who you are in the negotiation until it is over so there is plenty of work to be done in this process but my judgment continues to bring to their political, social and military pressure is necessary and to be honest i haven't recommended we leave because in my judgment leaving afghanistan not only would create instability in south asia but in my judgment would get serviced groups the space within which to plan and conduct operations against the homeland and our allies and that is the problem we try to solve. i had the level of confidence with answers today based on my experiences wait out here and an inverse relationship if someone has a better idea than we have

right now which is continue to support the afghans and put pressures on the groups in that region i'm certainltheregion i'a dialogue on that. >> great conversation. i will be back in a few minutes for a conversation but for now we will move onto the next portion of the program. before we do that please join me in thanking the terrific speaker. [applause]